Blinken’s Failed Diplomacy: Feeble and Hostile Threats against China by Top-ranking US Officials Visiting Beijing
By Drago Bosnic | Global Research | April 25, 2024
On April 24, US State Secretary Antony Blinken landed in China and officially started his (hopefully) diplomatic visit. The relationship between the two countries has worsened significantly. Beijing’s peaceful overtures have been met with nothing but hostility in Washington DC. The United States is simply terrified of the prospect that China will overtake it. However, this has already happened in many ways.
When not murdering millions around the world, America is still trying to figure out whether public toilets should be “mixed-gender”, while China is busy building not just itself, but the world, too.
Most of the planet is perfectly aware of this disparity and is making it clear that cooperation with Beijing is a matter of choice, while having anything to do with Washington DC mostly boils down to coercion, as the political elites there are simply incapable of conducting “diplomacy” without resorting to arm-twisting.
Blinken is going to China precisely with such bearing, pompously announcing that he “arrives with a warning that the US and its European allies are no longer prepared to tolerate China’s sale of weapon components and dual-use products to Russia”. The political West insists that this is “helping Vladimir Putin rebuild and modernize his arms factories, enabling him to intensify his onslaught on Ukraine”. Caught in the web of its own endless stream of lies, the belligerent power pole is trying to blame anyone but itself. However, this is all futile, particularly when it comes to superpowers such as China. Beijing will certainly decide whether or not to do business with someone and the political West has no say in it whatsoever. Blinken will have three days to relay the US position and if that time will be used to make toothless threats and attempt blackmail, he should’ve certainly picked another country.
The mainstream propaganda machine thinks that the relations between the US and China are improving, citing Blinken’s planned attendance at a basketball game as the indicator of this.
However, the simple fact that none of the top-ranking officials greeted him when he flew in indicates something completely different. Blinken is supposed to meet Beijing’s veteran Foreign Minister Wang Yi tomorrow. The encounter is expected to last at least six hours and might even include President Xi Jinping. This will certainly depend on Blinken’s command of actual diplomacy, as the aforementioned threats he pompously announced are only for domestic consumption and are entirely void in China. The US might threaten with sanctions, but this is a two-way street and any reciprocal measures would certainly hurt America’s economic and maybe even national security interests. It’s entirely up to the US whether things will take such an unpleasant turn.
The troubled Biden administration reportedly raised the issue of the supposed “support” for Russia directly with President Xi Jinping, while US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen did the same during her recent visit to China. However, Beijing seems completely unconcerned, as it has repeatedly stated that Washington DC’s threats regarding its close ties with Moscow mean nothing, particularly as the US and its vassals and satellite states keep escalating their aggression in the Asia-Pacific. It seems that simply maintaining normal economic and financial relations with Russia now boils down to “helping” its efforts to push back against NATO aggression in Europe. After all, even if countries like China, Iran and North Korea are building closer ties with their northern neighbor, it can only be expected that everyone the political West keeps threatening will find ways to unite their forces and push back together.
“Let me stress again that China’s right to conduct normal trade and economic exchanges with Russia and other countries in the world on the basis of equality and mutual benefit should not be interfered with or disrupted,” Wang Wenbin, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, stated just before Blinken’s arrival, adding: “China’s legitimate and lawful rights and interests should not be infringed on.”
US officials insist that Beijing supposedly “gave up on the idea of sending weapons directly to Moscow thanks to their threats“. However, the entire claim is essentially a multilayered lie, as there’s no evidence whatsoever that China ever planned on arming Russia, let alone that it stopped doing so because of the political West’s pressure. On top of that, Washington DC is trying to disrupt the rapidly growing trade between the two (Eur)Asian giants, particularly through claims that Beijing is supplying so-called “dual-use” industrial goods. This is where the endless hypocrisy and mental gymnastics of the political West become most evident. While the US just decided to send dozens of billions worth of weapons to directly undermine Russia’s and China’s basic national security interests, it’s accusing the latter of “helping” the former by simply trading with it, as the so-called “dual-use” industrial goods can be pretty much anything.
Worse yet, the US and its vassals and satellite states are surrounding both Beijing and Moscow with long-range missiles and deploying troops not only in their vicinity, but directly on their borders. Still, according to their own admission, “the Blinken team is worried that China’s response to pressure over Russia could be to slow down progress in other areas of the bilateral relationship”. This also includes the (Eur)Asian giant’s close ties with North Korea, as the US wants it to put pressure on Pyongyang. Washington DC is particularly terrified of the prospect that Russia, China and North Korea are forming a more monolithic alliance that the political West will be simply hopeless to match. However, they have nobody else to blame but themselves. Constant threats and attempts to undermine all three of these countries left them with no other choice but to work together. After all, that’s one of the reasons why BRICS itself exists.
Blinken threatens China over Russia ties
RT | April 26, 2024
Washington is ready to introduce more sanctions against China over its alleged transfer of dual-use goods and components, which can supposedly be used by the Russian military industrial complex, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on Friday.
Speaking at a press conference in Beijing following his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, the US official recalled that Washington has already imposed sanctions against more than 100 Chinese entities and is “fully prepared to act” and “take additional measures.”
Blinken claimed that China’s alleged support for the Russian defense industry raises concerns not only about the situation in Ukraine, but also about a “medium to long-term threat that many Europeans feel viscerally that Russia poses to them.”
Earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal had also reported that the US was drafting sanctions that could cut off some Chinese banks from the global financial system unless Beijing severs its economic ties with Russia.
The outlet claimed that US officials believe trade with China has allowed Russia to rebuild its military industrial capacity and could help it defeat Ukraine in a war of attrition.
Beijing, in turn, has accused the US of hypocrisy for providing billions of dollars in assistance to Ukraine while “unreasonably criticizing the normal trade and economic relations between Russia and China.”
“This is a very hypocritical and irresponsible approach,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbing told reporters on Friday in response to Blinken’s concerns about Beijing’s support of Moscow.
China has also vehemently rejected accusations leveled by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg of “fueling” the Ukraine conflict. Beijing has instead blamed NATO for instigating the crisis by continuing its expansion in Europe and refusing to respect Russian national security concerns.
Following his meeting with Blinken, President Xi suggested that the US and China “should be partners, not rivals” and should strive towards achieving “mutual success and not harm each other.”
“I proposed three major principles: mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, and win-win cooperation. They are not only a summary of past experience, but also a guide to the future,” the Chinese leader was quoted as saying.
Beijing has maintained a policy of neutrality on the Ukraine conflict, with Chinese officials repeatedly stating that the country is not selling weapons to either Russia or Ukraine. Earlier this month, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Mao Ning insisted that China “regulates the export of dual-use articles in accordance with laws and regulations,” urging “relevant countries” not to “smear or attack the normal relations between China and Russia.”
In December last year, US President Joe Biden issued a decree which enabled sanctions on foreign financial institutions that continue to deal with Russia. It targeted lenders outside US and EU jurisdictions that help Russia source sensitive items, which reportedly include semiconductors, machine tools, chemical precursors, ball bearings, and optical systems.
The sanctions regime against the DPRK under threat
By Konstantin Asmolov – New Eastern Outlook – 24.04.2024
On March 28, 2024, Russia vetoed the extension of the mandate of the UN panel of experts to monitor the sanctions against the DPRK until April 30, 2025. This is important, because according to the established procedure, the decision to extend the term of office of the so-called 1718 Sanctions Committee must be made by April 30, otherwise it will be unable to continue with its activities.
What is the 1718 Sanctions Committee?
Resolution 1718 was adopted in October 2006 in response to the nuclear threat posed by North Korea. The Resolution prohibited the supply, sale or transfer to the DPRK of any military equipment and weapons, and also of materials, equipment, goods and technology that could be used in North Korea’s weapons of mass destruction programs. Since then, the UN Security Council has adopted a number of other resolutions tightening the sanctions on North Korea.
The eight-member Panel of Experts supporting the UN Sanctions Committee on North Korea was established in 2009 pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 1874, which was adopted in response to the DPRK’s second nuclear test, to monitor compliance with the sanctions imposed on the DPRK by the UN member states. A panel of eight UN Secretary General-approved experts from the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council – the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia, as well as South Korea, Japan and Singapore (theoretically) – collects, studies, analyzes data on the implementation of sanctions against the DPRK, submits a twice-annual report on sanctions violations to the United Nations Security Council based on information from UN member states and other open source materials, and makes recommendations on the sanctions issue.
Since its founding the group has reportedly uncovered a number of sanctions violations, including those related to the DPRK’s nuclear and missile programs and other prohibited activities such as the import of luxury goods and ship-to-ship transfers of sanctioned items.
The UN Security Council votes annually to extend the Panel’s mandate, and in 2023 Russia voted in favor of the extension.
Two days before the vote, NK News, citing “informed sources at the UN,” reported that Russia and China had proposed adding “sunset” clauses to the sanctions regime against the DPRK as a precondition for extending the Panel’s mandate. They proposed adding an expiration date to the de facto open-ended sanctions regime, and requiring a new consensus of the UN Security Council member states in order to renew the sanctions for a further term. Russia also proposed reducing the frequency of the group’s reports submission from twice to once a year.
The NK News article noted that the US, UK and France refuse to accept these proposals, which means that Moscow will be likely to veto the extension of the Panel’s mandate.
The Russian proposals were rejected and Russia blocked a draft resolution submitted by the United States, although 13 of the 15 UN Security Council members voted in favor of it. The representative of China, who abstained from voting, expressed support for Russia’s position, saying that the proposal to set an expiration date for sanctions on North Korea was “highly practical and quite feasible.”
Russia’s arguments
Explaining the reason for Russia’s exercise of its veto right Russia’s permanent representative to the UN, Vasily Nebenzya, said that the authors of the document did not take into account Moscow’s proposal to set a time limit for the sanctions against North Korea, which remain indefinite.
As Vasily Nebenzya stated before the vote, it was “long overdue” for the Council to update the sanctions regime against the DPRK in light of the realities of the situation.
However, all attempts by Russia and China to link the level of sanctions pressure with the current behavior of the DPRK “have always been met with the absolute unwillingness of Western countries to depart from their destructive and punitive logic towards the DPRK.”
The 1718 Committee’s Panel of Experts, tasked with monitoring the sanctions policy, “failed to perform its direct duties” and was unable to “develop sober assessments of the state of the sanctions regime,” and as a result “its work was reduced to playing along with the West’s policies, repeating biased information, and analyzing newspaper headlines and low-quality pictures.”
Unfortunately, the present author has to agree with this statement, because the Panel’s reports included almost exclusively “investigations” made by sensationalist media outlets, with no critical analysis and an overreliance on the phrase “highly likely.”
According to the Russian representative, the West, led by the United States, is trying to “strangle” the DPRK through unilateral restrictions, propaganda and threats against the country’s leadership.
Given the above background, Russia proposed that the Council embark on an open and honest review of its sanctions measures against the DPRK, but “the US and its allies did not want to hear us and did not include our proposals in the draft resolution which was put to a vote today. Under these conditions, we do not see any ‘added value’ in the work of the Committee’s Panel of Experts and cannot support the American draft.”
Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova has twice commented on the problem, emphasizing that “the Council can no longer act according to its established patterns with regard to the Korean Peninsula issue.” The security situation in the region has not improved over the long years of sanctions (the DPRK’s missile and nuclear capabilities have only grown, the present author would add), and the devastating humanitarian consequences of the sanctions on the DPRK’s civilian population are evident. Moreover, it is not the DPRK that is aggravating the current situation, but rather the increasingly aggressive military activity of the United States and its allies that is leading to a new round of escalation in the region.
Many experts agree with this assessment. For example, Andrei Lankov, a prominent Russian-speaking researcher on the DPRK, told NK News that the increasing politicization of the Panel of Experts’ work has rendered it unable to reliably monitor the extent of the DPRK’s sanctions evasion. In his view, the differences of opinion within the DPRK Panel of Experts “reflect the main problem with the UN in its current form: it can only work if there is a consensus of the major powers.”
What was the reaction of the “international community”?
As Russian military expert Vladimir Khrustalev notes, the suspension of the Panel of Experts’ mandate significantly undermines the viability and certain legal aspects of the sanctions regime in its previous form.
But, of course, the reaction of US and South Korean officials and experts has been to condemn Russia. Western analysts say the absence of the 1718 Committee, whose main task is to monitor sanctions violations, would make it easier for Russia to engage in arms deals with the DPRK – long accepted in the West as an established fact.
US Department of State spokesman Matthew Miller expressed disappointment over Russia’s veto of the resolution and China’s abstention, calling the Committee the “gold standard” for providing fact-based, independent analysis and recommendations.
South Korea’s Foreign Ministry expressed “deep regret” over the veto: “The Panel of Experts has fulfilled its role in monitoring the DPRK, which… continues to violate sanctions through various illegal actions such as nuclear and missile provocations, arms exports, sending workers abroad, cyberattacks and military cooperation with the Russian Federation, and is building up its nuclear and missile potential.”
Yang Moo-jin, president of the University of North Korean Studies, said that the key factor behind the lifting of the UN’s sanctions monitoring of North Korea was not only by the rapprochement between Pyongyang and Moscow, but also by growing hostility between the United States and Russia, which “pushed the latter to establish closer ties with North Korea. Their strategic relationships are inherently interconnected. In addition, there is growing criticism in the UN Security Council that the sanctions are useless.”
Maria Zakharova’s second statement was a response to such rhetoric. In addition, Russia pointed out the inadmissibility of such criticisms on the part of the United States, which for the past five months has been blocking UN Security Council resolutions on the situation in the Gaza Strip, thereby covering up the mass deaths of Palestinian civilians caused by Israeli actions.
In turn, the DPRK expressed its gratitude to Russia. As the DPRK’s permanent representative to the UN, Kim Song, said, “we highly appreciate the decision of the Russian Federation to veto the Security Council’s draft resolution on the 1718 Committee.” Kim recalled that Pyongyang has never recognized either the sanctions imposed by the Security Council or the work of the sanctions committee.
Does all this mean the end of the sanctions regime?
Unfortunately not. Of course, the West is stoking fears that “the end of the Expert Panel will encourage North Korea to continue to engage in prohibited acts with impunity and frustrate international efforts to deter growing nuclear and missile threats.” However, Seoul, Washington and other like-minded countries will step up their coordination by imposing individual or multilateral sanctions in order to keep “turning the screws” on Pyongyang. As Kim Eun-hye stated in a briefing, “Despite the suspension of the Panel, we will continue to honor the sanctions against North Korea and make every effort to create an environment in which North Korea has no choice but to refuse to move in the wrong direction.”
Most likely, the panel of experts will simply be replaced. Victor Cha already proposes to fill the vacuum with an “alternative mechanism” involving countries with similar positions on the issue, such as the US, South Korea, Japan, Australia, etc., who will cooperate by sharing information.
Eric Penton-Voak also suggests that as an alternative to the Expert Panel the activities of think tanks and media specializing in the area be stepped up, which could make the enforcement of the sanctions more effective.
The first steps in this direction have already begun. On April 5, 2024, the US State Department stated that “amid the growing need for tighter international cooperation to address North Korean threats following Russia’s recent veto of a resolution on the annual renewal of a UN panel monitoring the enforcement of sanctions against the North” US Senior Official for North Korea Jung Pak will visit Romania, Poland, and Sweden. She will negotiate on challenges from North Korea’s “unlawful nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs, malicious cyber activity, and deepening military and political partnership with Russia.”
Some experts, however, are more pessimistic. Frank Aum, a senior expert at the US Institute of Peace, notes that “the termination of the panel further erodes the multilateral sanctions regime against North Korea and forces the United States and other countries to pursue more unilateral, bilateral or monolateral efforts to crack down on North Korea.” In his view, “this scenario represents not just a crisis for advocates of pressure and sanctions against North Korea, but also the broader functioning of the UNSC and the post World War II international order.”
The present author rather agrees with these views. Yes, the UN structure will be replaced by a private shop whose verdicts will be even more biased, but less binding. The US is unlikely to lift the sanctions, considering any movement in this direction ideologically unacceptable. But another deep crack has appeared in the façade of the UN as an independent arbitration institution.
Konstantin Asmolov, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Southeast Asia on Course to Ukraine-Style Crisis Amid US Militarization of Philippines
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 22.04.2024
US and Philippine troops kicked off the largest iteration of their annual Balikatan exercises in decades this week, with this year’s drills involving some 11,000 US and 5,000 Filipino military personnel, plus forces from Australia and France. Geopolitical analyst and former US Marine Brian Berletic explains why the drills are so dangerous.
Chinese diplomatic and military officials slammed Washington and Manila over the Balikatan drills on Monday, accusing participants of attempting to “flex” their “gunboat muscles,” stoking confrontation in the South China Sea and undermining regional security.
“Reality has shown that those who make deliberate provocations, stoke tensions, or support one side against another for selfish gains will ultimately only hurt themselves,” Chinese Central Military Commission Zhang Youxia said, warning that US-led attempts at “maritime containment, encirclement and island blockades will only plunge the world into a vortex of division and turbulence.”
The Chinese military plans to increase its naval and air patrols in the South China Sea amid the US-Philippines exercises, which will run until May 10, and include everything from maritime security and air defense operations to cyber and information warfare, and simulate the seizure of islands in the vicinity of Taiwan and the South China Sea.
Crucially, drilling will include naval exercises outside the Philippines’ internationally recognized territorial waters near the disputed South China Sea – parts of which are claimed by both Manila and Beijing.
Former Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte warned current President Bongbong Marcos Jr last week about the risks of cozying up with the US at the expense of balanced relations with China, accusing Washington of trying to provoke a war between the Philippines and China, and emphasizing that he doesn’t believe “America will die for us” if tensions grow into direct clashes.
“I would remove the bases. And I would tell the Americans, you have so many ships, so you do not need my island as a launching pad or a launching deck for you,” Duterte said.
Assuming office in 2022, the Marcos Jr. government moved to expand the Philippines’ Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement with the United States, nearly doubling the number of military bases in the country that the US gets access to from five to nine in 2023. Two of the facilities, the Antonio Bautista Air Base and the Balabac Island Air Base in the Palawan archipelago, border directly on contested waters in the South China Sea.
Echoes of Ukrainian Escalation
Filipinos are right to be concerned about US attempts to militarize their country, says former US Marine-turned author, journalist and independent geopolitical analyst Brian Berletic.
“The Philippines were previously a US colony gaining independence only in 1945. Since then, the US has attempted to reassert political control over the country as well as maintain a large US military presence on its shores. The goal is to militarize the country and use it as part of a wider united front against China,” Berletic told Sputnik.
“Exercises like Balikatan give the US an opportunity to shape the Philippines’ armed forces into a suitable proxy for a potential conflict with China,” the observer warned.
The creeping militarization of the island nation is not unlike processes witnessed in the aftermath of the Euromaidan coup d’état in Ukraine in 2014, which were followed by joint military exercises involving US and Ukrainian troops, Berletic recalled.
These processes ultimately culminated in the 2022 escalation of the Donbass crisis into a full-blown NATO-Russia proxy war.
“Washington’s primary objective in the Asia-Pacific region is to encircle and contain China. To do this, the US is attempting to compromise the governments of nations along China’s periphery including the Philippines, establish a US military presence within their borders, and militarize these countries against China,” the observer explained.
In addition to allowing the US to move its military assets “dangerously close to Chinese territory,” including in the disputed waters of the South China Sea and off the shores of the breakaway Chinese island province of Taiwan, US activities in the Philippines are designed to take advantage of and artificially inflame outstanding regional maritime disputes.
This enables Washington to “both justify a larger US military presence in the region, and turn nations in the region against China,” Berletic said.
“This will result in a similar crisis as seen in Europe where the US not only used Ukraine in a highly destructive proxy war against Russia, but also decimated Europe’s economy, socio-political stability, and placed the entire region on the precipice of a US-driven war,” Berletic fears.
South China Sea Dispute
The dispute between China, the Philippines and other nations over the strategic, energy and fishing resource-rich waters of the South China Sea dates back to the immediate post-WWII period, with Beijing staking claims on the basis of imperial dynasties’ near total control over waters in the area prior to the arrival of the Europeans and Americans in the region.
China has been exploring a regional dispute mechanism with its South China Sea neighbors since 2002, and has called on Washington – which has no claims to the region, to butt out. The US has gradually ramped up its military presence in the region since the early 2010s, when Obama Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the South China Sea a matter of US “national interest.” In addition to shoring up a network of alliances and undermining Chinese negotiating efforts, the US has deployed Navy and Coast Guard ships into the South China Sea on so-called ‘freedom of navigation’ missions to challenge Chinese sovereignty claims. These missions have resulted in a series of close calls between Chinese, US and US-allied warships and military aircraft.
America’s “national interest” in the South China Sea is also inexorably tied in part to a strategy of containing China through the so-called ‘Island Chain Strategy’, which envisions a broad network of US bases and bilateral pacts with regional powers to prevent the Chinese Navy from being able to mount operations beyond its home waters.
World Military Expenditure Reaches All-Time High of $2,443Bln in 2023 – SIPRI
Sputnik – 22.04.2024
Global military expenditure increased by 6.8% in 2023 year-over-year and reached a new record high of $2,443 billion, with the three largest spenders being the US, China and Russia, according to new data published on Monday by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).
“World military expenditure rose for the ninth consecutive year to an all-time high of $2,443 billion,” SIPRI said.
Moreover, military expenditure increased in all five of the geographical regions defined by SIPRI, the institute added.
The US remained the world’s biggest military spender with a 37% share of the world total and $916 billion spent in 2023. It is followed by China with a 12% share and an estimated $296 billion spent on the military and Russia with a 4.5% share and an estimated $109 billion spent on defense last year, which represents a 24% increase compared to 2022.
Ukraine, the eighth largest spender in 2023, increased its military spending by 51% year-over-year to $64.8 billion, which is 58% of the country’s total government spending.
The Middle East has seen a 9% surge in military spending, with Israel’s spending growing by 24% to $27.5 billion amid its operation in the Gaza Strip, the institute added.
US house speaker announces ‘new axis of evil’
RT | April 19, 2024
In a dramatic break from his party’s hardline conservative base, US House Speaker MIke Johnson this week praised the country’s deep state, named Russia, China, and Iran as an “axis of evil,” and vowed to put his job on the line to funnel more than $60 billion to Kiev.
For months, Johnson has resisted bringing a $95 billion foreign aid bill to a vote, arguing that neither he nor his fellow Republicans could support such a bill – which would give $14 billion in military aid to Israel and $60 billion to Ukraine – without it being tied to an overhaul of US border security.
However, after a series of recent meetings with US intelligence chiefs, Johnson has changed his tune.
“This is a critical time right now, a critical time on the world stage,” Johnson told reporters on Wednesday. “I think providing lethal aid to Ukraine right now is critically important. I really do. I really do believe the intel and the briefings that we’ve gotten.”
“I believe [Chinese President] Xi [Jinping] and [Russian President] Vladimir Putin and Iran really are an axis of evil,” he continued. “I think they’re in coordination on this. I think that Vladimir Putin would continue to march through Europe if he were allowed.”
Johnson’s comments represented a break with the Republican Party’s pro-Trump wing. These supporters of the former president – most prominent among them Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene and Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz – view the country’s intelligence agencies as arms of the anti-Trump “deep state,” and have called for the flow of money to Kiev to be halted.
“Fighting a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine, which is a non-NATO member nation, is not protecting America’s national security interests, it doesn’t protect the United States of America, as a matter of fact, it pushes us closer and closer to world war three,” Greene told journalist Tucker Carlson earlier this month.
Johnson’s reference to an “axis of evil,” however, invokes the more interventionist GOP of the past. Coined by speechwriter David Frum, the phrase was first used by George W. Bush to refer to Iran, Iraq, and North Korea in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Former National Security Adviser John Bolton later added Cuba, Libya and Syria to the list.
Despite resistance from some of its Republican members, the House Rules Committee agreed on Thursday to split the foreign aid bill into three separate bills – one each for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. The house voted in favor of this move on Friday, leaving Johnson free to schedule a vote on each bill for Saturday, even as Greene filed a motion to remove him from the speakership.
Johnson said on Wednesday that he anticipated such a move, telling reporters that he was willing to “take personal risk” to pass the bills.
US Will Try to Rally Other Nations to Sanction Iran Over Israel Attack
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | April 16, 2024
US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen will attempt to convince the international community to increase economic penalties on Iran as punishment for the drone and missile barrage Tehran launched at Israel. Iran’s attack followed Israel’s assassination of several high-ranking officials when Tel Aviv bombed Tehran’s consulate in Damascus.
On Tuesday, Axios reported that the Treasury is preparing new sanctions to levy on Iran and will use an International Monetary Fund (IMF) meeting later this week to try to convince other countries to join. “All options to disrupt terrorist financing of Iran continue to be on the table,” she said.
The sanctions would be a response to Iran’s drone and missile attack on Israel. The Iranian attack was a response to Israel’s bombing of the Iranian consulate in Syria, which killed 16 people, including seven IRGC officials.
“Treasury will not hesitate to work with our allies to use our sanctions authority to continue disrupting the Iranian regime’s malign and destabilizing activity,” Yellen is set to say during her opening remarks at the IMF conference. “The attack by Iran and its proxies underscores the importance of Treasury’s work to use our economic tools to counter Iran’s malign activity.”
According to Axios, Washington hopes the sanctions will show Tel Aviv that there is a way to punish Tehran without a direct attack on Iran. The war government in Tel Aviv says it will respond to the Iranian attack “clearly and forcefully.”
However, the Washington Post notes that the White House has few options for sanctioning Tehran as the Iranian economy is already one of the most heavily sanctioned. The Post explains that one of Washington’s few options for expanding sanctions on Iran is to blacklist Chinese firms purchasing Iranian crude oil.
Pursuing that path may create more problems for the White House as it will likely upset Beijing and drive up oil prices. The Biden administration is seeking to prevent an increase in gas prices in an election year and has previously asked Ukraine not to attack Russian energy infrastructure.
Why US Scheme to Kill Russia’s Arctic LNG 2 is Dead in the Water
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 16.04.2024
The US is trying to upend Russia’s Arctic LNG 2 project and do whatever it takes to ensure it is “dead in the water.” Will Washington succeed in killing Russia’s bold energy endeavor?
The US plans to use sanctions to asphyxiate the Arctic LNG-2 gas liquefaction project by the Russian company Novatek, the Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday, citing US Assistant Secretary of State for Energy Geoffrey Pyatt.
In particular, Washington is trying to prevent Moscow from receiving specialized ice-class tankers needed for transporting liquefied natural gas (LNG). As a result, the South Korean shipbuilder Hanwha Ocean, assigned with building six gas carriers for the project, has ceased cooperation with the customer.
Washington’s actions go well beyond international law or free market rules, according to Stanislav Mitrakhovich, leading expert of the National Energy Security Foundation and the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation.
“The Americans simply use their clout in the world, that is, their financial, political, and technological influence, to force the whole world to act in the way they want,” Mitrakhovich clarified.
When it comes to Russia’s energy trade, the US has a long history of trying to squeeze the nation out of the European market under various pretexts. Eventually, Washington managed to force the EU into severing energy ties with Russia (to Europe’s detriment) after the beginning of the special military operation in Ukraine in February 2022.
In September 2022, the Nord Stream pipelines carrying natural gas from Russia to Europe were destroyed by “unknown perpetrators”, believed by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh to be American and Norwegian operatives acting on Team Biden’s orders.
Thus, it was hardly surprising that the US emerged as the largest supplier of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe (EU-27 and the UK) in 2022 and 2023, as per the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). Nonetheless, Russia remained Europe’s third-largest LNG supplier. According to some estimates, EU imports of Russian LNG have soared by 40% since February 2022.
Arctic LNG-2 is Russia’s third LNG project. According to expectations, once the endeavor is completed, it would encompass three liquefaction trains producing a total of 19.8 million tons per annum (MTPA) of LNG and up to 1.6 MTPA of stable gas condensate (SGC). Apparently, that does not fit into the US energy market expansion plans.
West No Longer Trustworthy
Russian President Vladimir Putin repeatedly stated that Western restrictions against Russia violate the principles of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and are unfair methods of competition.
According to Mitrakhovich, the US and its allies have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted neither as guarantors of the global economy, nor as standard-bearers, or responsible partners.
“It’s hard to trust the West as a banker because they can seize those assets. It is difficult to trust the West as a technological partner because it can say: ‘I will no longer provide technologies, despite existing contracts.’ The West cannot be trusted as a country that honors contracts; on the contrary, the West has shown in every possible way over the past couple of years that contracts mean little to them, thereby violating the basic principle of Roman law that contracts must be respected,” he pointed out.
Western Sanctions Catalyzed Russia’s Development
That said, Western sanctions have triggered Russia’s re-industrialization and import substation, Mitrakhovich noted.
The expert has no doubts that the work on Arctic LNG-2 will be continued despite Western pressure. It will take time and effort to launch the production of suitable ice-class gas tankers at Russia’s shipbuilding facilities instead of those stuck in South Korea, acknowledged Mitrakhovich, adding that Moscow has another technological partner in Asia.
“I would be glad to see Russian-Chinese cooperation in the field of shipbuilding,” the expert said, referring to vast untapped opportunities in the sphere.
In addition, there are several alternatives of how to proceed with the project without significant delays, Mitrakhovich continued:
“One option is to move the second and third lines of Arctic LNG-2 to the Murmansk region, near the locations where these lines are being technologically built. What is interesting about the transfer to the Murmansk region is that from there gas can be exported to world markets. For example, it can be exported to Asia without going through the ice barrier. In other words, regular tankers will be needed, instead of ice-class ones.”
Western Options are Limited
On top of that, the West’s capabilities of hindering Russia’s flagship LNG projects are limited, according to Sputnik’s interlocutor. Even though the EU Parliament has recently approved legal options to block Russian LNG imports to the Old Continent and the US has vowed to introduce new sanctions as well, other global players are continuing to boost energy cooperation with Moscow, the expert stressed.
“Thirty years ago, in 1994, when there was a US unipolar moment, the Americans could do almost anything in the world, and few people could withstand them,” Mitrakhovich noted. “Now the situation has changed. There are countries that are acting independently on the world arena. These are Russia, China and India. And they can use their technologies, expand mutual trade, and so on. Therefore, America will not be able to completely stifle the independence of these countries,” he pointed out.
Furthermore, Washington’s aggressive actions on the world stage are accelerating the pace of rapprochement between major Eurasian players, the expert highlighted.
“The Chinese see how unceremoniously the Americans are acting. And in fact, all these American attacks against Russia are being actively studied in China. I think this will ultimately push the Chinese to focus more on cooperation with Russia instead of that with America,” he said.
“I think that the [Russo-Chinese] project Power of Siberia-2 needs to be accelerated, because in the event of a mess in Taiwan the Americans could limit the supply of all sorts of commodities to China by sea. And if there is a pipe from Russia, [China wouldn’t suffer from a possible energy blockade]. Russia’s LNG exports could also be redirected to China (…) along the safe Northern Sea Route,”he said.
The West can throw sand in Russia’s gears, but it cannot stop the nation’s industrial and technological development based on its vast resources, expertise, and international links, the expert concluded.
Scholz has one trump card in talks with China, but he’ll never use it
By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | April 16, 2024
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is on a three-day visit to China. He is not traveling alone. A large delegation of German business representatives, including from flagship companies such as Mercedes, Siemens, and BMW, is coming along. Scholz’s agenda is ambitious: The chancellor wishes to talk about international trade and competition, climate politics, the tensions over Taiwan, the war in Ukraine and Beijing’s relationship with Russia. Since Iran has just made use of its clear right to self-defense and retaliated following Israel’s illegal attack on Tehran’s diplomatic premises in Damascus, Scholz felt compelled to make a statement about that as well.
Two of these topics tower above the others: matters of trade and the relationship between China and Russia. Regarding trade, the crucial issue is that the West in general – led by the US – has embarked on a policy of de facto economic warfare against China, while constantly threatening to escalate further.
That was the essence of Janet Yellen’s recent Beijing trip; the US Treasury Secretary arrived with a list of demands to curb what America denounced as Chinese “overcapacity” and dumping, and left with a blunt warning that “nothing was off the table” in terms of additional strikes against China’s economy.
Then there is the EU, which as usual, follows Washington’s lead. Under hardliners like European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Vice President Margrethe Vestager, Brussels is ramping up anti-Chinese rhetoric and measures. Beijing has officially been declared a “partner for cooperation, an economic competitor, and a systemic rival.” With the EU Commission defining “economic security” clearly in opposition to China and launching probes targeting Chinese electric vehicles, wind turbines, and soon the procurement of medical devices, the accent clearly is on competitor and rival.
At the same time, however, German business leaders know that they cannot afford a policy of sustained conflict. A high-ranking Siemens executive has just gone public with a warning that “decoupling” from Chinese manufacturing would take “decades.” That, clearly, is just another way of saying it’s a very bad idea to even try.
Superficially, it may appear that there is an opportunity here for Scholz – an opportunist to a fault – to appear as a mediator or, at least, to deftly balance and weave between competing demands. The Global Times, a media outlet owned by the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, prefaced the chancellor’s visit with a generally welcoming article, depicting Scholz as, in essence, a dove among hawks, arguing that while Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock and Economic Minister Robert Habeck stand for confrontation, the chancellor is seeking to find a balanced approach.
Yet, even if he wanted to try to be smart and flexible, Scholz is hamstrung in multiple ways. He will struggle to be taken seriously because both Germany and its chancellor lack international standing, and Germany lacks leverage in its relationship with China.
Let’s look at the leverage deficit first: In economic terms, the Chinese-German relationship is substantial and complex. Many factors are important; multiple indicators are relevant, such as, for instance, foreign direct investment (which is currently dipping). But overall trade volumes suffice to show that Germany cannot speak to Beijing from a position of strength or even parity.
China, according to 2023 export data, is still Germany’s single biggest trading partner, as Bloomberg has noted. That is not unusual in today’s world: with the second-largest economy in the world (the largest in Purchasing Power Parity terms), China is the top trade partner for a total of 120 countries. China is also the largest (external) trade partner of the European Union as whole. However, from China’s perspective, Germany ranks only 8th among export destinations, less than the US, Japan, and even Vietnam.
None of the above means that the economic relationship with Berlin does not matter to Beijing, but it does mean that it matters even more for Berlin. Among rational actors, such a pattern of mutual dependency is a reason for cooperation. What it certainly is not is one-sided leverage for Germany. If anyone has the whip hand here, it’s China, which may have tried to “gently” signal this fact with Scholz’s intriguingly low-key, not to say humiliating reception on his arrival in the Chinese manufacturing metropolis Chongqing.
In fundamental terms, Germany, according to data from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), is a country of not quite 84 million people (in China, Chongqing alone is home to over 30 million inhabitants) with projected GDP growth this year down to almost zero (0.5 percent). China has a population of over 1.4 billion, and its GDP is estimated to grow by 4.6 percent.
In sum, China’s economy has problems, such as its over-expanded real estate sector, which are inevitable and often obsessively exaggerated by Western “China doomers.” Germany’s economy is a problem.
The German chancellor can only play a weak hand, due to economics. There is only one way to play it well, and that would involve politics. Scholz could create some room for maneuver for Germany if he did what the Global Times article signaled Beijing would like to see from him: to show some autonomy, a little bit of distance between himself and the hardliners now dominating both Washington and Brussels.
Indeed, for the China hawks in the West, the mere possibility that the German chancellor might go off script is such a nightmare scenario it had to be exorcised in one of America’s two most authoritative journals on international politics. Foreign Policy dedicated a whole article to, in essence, asking if Scholz will chicken out and be too conciliatory toward Beijing. If the Global Times sent an invitation of the “an-offer-you-should-not-refuse” kind, Foreign Policy’s message was “don’t you dare.”
Scholz should dare. It would be only rational because it is really the only trump card he has. As Foreign Policy acknowledges, the EU’s hardball approach cannot work if Berlin is not on board. Without the EU toeing the line, Washington’s game would become much more challenging, too. That is power right there: the power to balance and play both sides.
Unfortunately, this is where we come up against Scholz’s very narrow limits. This is no Bismarck. Instead, we are dealing with a chancellor who can be called the most recklessly and – it must be said, spinelessly – subservient to the US in Germany’s post-WWII history. Scholz grinned when Biden announced, in essence, that the US would destroy the Nord Stream pipelines if it felt like it. When it happened, nothing happened: Germany took it and kept grinning.
Under Scholz, Berlin has become a perfect client of the US. Accordingly, there is no real daylight between Berlin and Brussels either; another ultra-Atlanticist German, Ursula von der Leyen, runs the European Commission. True, some observers speculate that Germany is slyly cutting corners, but that will amount to too little, in absolute terms, for Beijing.
The issue of dependency also brings us to the penultimate irony of Scholz’s visit: The German chancellor has let it be known that he intends to challenge Beijing on its policy toward Russia and thus the war in Ukraine. In essence, Scholz seems to believe it is his job – and within his rights – to urge China to loosen its ties with Russia as well as to support the West’s unrealistic proposals for ending the war in Ukraine without acknowledging that Russia is winning it.
There are two things wrong with this astonishingly tone-deaf attitude: First, obviously, neither Germany nor the EU are in a position to make such requests of Beijing. They have neither the arguments nor the power to back them up. In such cases, the wiser and more dignified course is to be quiet. Second, less obviously, who is Scholz to try to interfere in the partnership between Moscow and Beijing, a partnership marked by rationality and respect for both partners’ national interests? As long as Germany offers a spectacle of unquestioning and irrational obedience to Washington, no one will be interested in its advice on how to cooperate.
That was the penultimate irony. Here is the ultimate one: Scholz’s visit is, most fundamentally, an outcome of the fact that the West has not been able to cajole China. With respect to Germany in particular, it is true that, according to a recent poll, two thirds of German businesses active in China complain of unequal treatment. And yet they are there. And yet a German chancellor still arrives with a planeload of business leaders.
The true message of the poll is about how indispensable China is, talk of “derisking” this and “decoupling” that notwithstanding. In the not-too-distant future, a successor of Scholz may well find himself on a similar trip, but to Moscow. Namely, when two realities will have become so compelling that they must be acknowledged: Russia, too, cannot be cajoled by the West; and, for Germany as well as for Europe as a whole, Russia, too, remains indispensable.
Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul.
All for One and One for All
By William Schryver – imetatronink – April 13, 2024
Russia, China, and Iran have now formed a de facto military and economic alliance — what they prefer to call a “partnership”.
In the case of Russia and China, a comprehensive full-spectrum partnership has emerged: military, economic, and monetary.
Trade between Russia and China has exploded both quantitatively and qualitatively.
Importantly, trade settlement is overwhelmingly denominated in rubles and renminbi. Use of the dollar and its international mechanisms is being aggressively deprecated.
Russia and China now conduct regular joint naval and air patrols of the western Pacific, from Alaska to the South China Sea.
Russia, China, and Iran conduct regular joint exercises in the Arabian Sea. Those exercises have increased in both scope and frequency in recent years.
Both Russia and China are investing vast sums of capital in Iran, much of it in the energy sector and in ambitious transportation projects aiming to construct fast and efficient trade corridors linking China, Iran, and Russia as primary nodes of Eurasian commerce.
Arms and technology transfers between the three countries have reached unprecedented levels.
Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov just concluded several days of talks with Chinese leaders, including both Wang Yi and Xi Jinping. In its report of the talks, the Chinese government’s flagship media organ, Global Times, summarized (in the words of prominent CPC commentator Li Haidong) the current state of the Russia/China relationship:
“China and Russia will not target any third party, but if hegemonic forces threaten China and Russia, or threaten world peace, China and Russia will stand together and fight to protect their own interests and safeguard world peace together.”
It is increasingly evident that Russia, China, and Iran recognize that an attack against any one of them would constitute an existential threat to them all. The strategic interests of all three countries are now inextricably intertwined.
Most importantly, they are united in a single overriding strategic objective: to dismantle the dominion of the long-reigning Anglo-American empire.
Naturally, the rapidly waning global hegemon is not inclined to relinquish its throne without a fight. What form that fight takes remains to be seen. But if the empire attempts to preserve its so-called “rules-based international order” via force of arms, it is essential to understand this incontrovertible reality:
In order for the United States to make war against any ONE of Russia, China, or Iran, it would be necessary to effectively vacate every major US base on the planet in order to concentrate enough military power to undertake the mission.
In a putative war between the United States and Iran, both Russia and China would actively support Iran. I’m not suggesting Russian or Chinese forces would fight alongside Iranians — although that could happen. But it would likely not be necessary. Iran would simply be supplemented with arms and other logistical necessities from both its partners — and quite possibly taken under their nuclear umbrella in an explicit act of deterrence.
Additionally, in consequence of the US weakening its force posture in Europe and the western Pacific in a bid to militarily subdue Iran, Russia and China would be enabled to apply immense pressure to western logistics, trade, and political influence in those regions. This is not to suggest that China would invade Taiwan or Russia would invade the Baltics or Poland. They would need only to exert their dominant influence in what were previously considered to be unassailable American imperial domains in east Asia and Europe.
The empire is stretched so thin and its potential for power projection is so diluted that undertaking even one Big War would be enough to bring the entire house of cards tumbling down.
This is the harsh reality the Masters of Empire are now facing, and no amount of mythologizing about the “limitless” power at their disposal can change it.
There is a vast difference between imagined power and the actual ability to project and sustain power against the adversaries the United States military must now face and defeat in order to prevent or even meaningfully delay the end of American global hegemony.
And, to the extent Russia, China, and Iran are determined to act all for one and one for all, they represent a combination of global military and economic power that cannot be defeated.
China tells US it won’t be bullied on Russia
RT | April 10, 2024
Relations between Beijing and Moscow are their business alone, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning has said, responding to veiled threats by a senior American diplomat.
US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell said on Tuesday that any further Russian advances in Ukraine will “have an impact” on the US-China relationship.
“China and Russia have the right to carry out normal cooperation. Such cooperation should not come under external interference or constraint,” Mao said, when asked about Campbell’s comments at Wednesday’s press briefing. “China will not accept the accusations and pressuring.”
Speaking to the nonprofit National Committee on US-China Relations, Campbell – who recently took over from Victoria Nuland – said that recent Russian gains could “alter the balance of power in Europe in ways that are, frankly, unacceptable” to Washington, and that the State Department has told Beijing as much.
“On Ukraine, China has always taken an objective and just position and played a constructive role in actively promoting peace talks,” Mao told reporters. “If certain countries truly care about peace and want an early end to the crisis, they should reflect on the root cause of the crisis and do something that will actually help bring about peace, rather than deflect the blame to China.”
Beijing has repeatedly resisted US pressure to side with Kiev and join the Washington-led embargo against Moscow.
Campbell’s remarks echoed the statements made by US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen during her visit to China earlier this week. Mao responded by saying that China would “take resolute measures to safeguard our legitimate rights and interests.”
On Wednesday, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman also condemned US travel warnings as “totally unwarranted,” “wrongful” and “groundless,” noting that they have “deterred many Americans” who wanted to visit the country.
China and other members of BRICS have helped Russia mitigate the “illegal policy of unilateral sanctions” by the West, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Tuesday, after meeting his counterpart Wang Yi in Beijing.
Moscow’s trade with the rest of the world has surged over the past two years, more than offsetting the embargo by the US and its allies, imposed over the Ukraine conflict.
Featured Video
Houthis Keep Advancing as the Red Sea Crisis Deepens
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
15 Saudi ‘hijackers’ were CIA agents working for US: Scholar
Press TV – April 13, 2016
Fifteen of the 9/11 “hijackers” from Saudi Arabia were CIA agents working for the United States government, which was seeking to destroy the Middle East for Israel and to double the American military budget, says Dr. Kevin Barrett, an American academic who has been studying the events of 9/11 since late 2003…. continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Russia Just Struck the Eyes of NATO’s War Machine in Ukraine
- Russia summons UK charge d’affaires over Kiev drone support
- NATO member warns bloc seeking pretext for war with Russia
- Macgregor: We Haven’t Seen the Worst of the Iran War Yet
- ‘We are not like everyone else’ laws that bind other nations do not apply to Israel, says Likud lawmaker
- Report: Saudi Arabia seeks allies’ assistance as missiles deplete amid war on Yemen
- Fuel Crisis Deepens: Pakistan Warns Tanker Attack in Red Sea Would Be an ‘Act of War’
- ‘Bucha massacre’ a false flag orchestrated by UK – Moscow
- China Rejects Outside Pressure on Trade Ties After New US Russia Sanctions Bill
- Houthis Keep Advancing as the Red Sea Crisis Deepens
- If Americans Knew
- Columbia Administered Fund Gives Big Money to Pro-Israel Groups
- Deportation Case of Palestinian Activist Salah Sarsour Tests First Amendment
- ‘We Will Not Forget’: Palestinians Mark 44 Years since Sabra and Shatila
- Why do we let Zionists decide what we can and can’t say?
- US welcomes Israeli, Iranian delegations to UN, but not Palestinians – Daily Update
- Biden’s Genocide Accomplices Targeted by New Accountability Campaign
- AIPAC’s Network Has Already Spent $67.2 Million to Shape the Midterm Elections
- Jewish Supremacist Manufacturing a Civilizational Threat to License Bigotry
- US bans Palestinian president from speaking at the UN
- Israeli Forces Detain Journalist Alaa al-Rimawi amid Widespread West Bank Raids
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
- Fear Of Debate: Alarmist German Climate Scientist Calls On Mainstream Media To Discredit Skeptic Voices
- End-Of-August Arctic Sea Ice Extent Hasn’t Fallen In 20 Years, Official Data Show!
Aletho News 